Interesting. It could be compared to the weird calculations made by oki, claiming that "ARM7 needs about 10MHz to decode MP3 and about 180Mhz for OGG
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330804"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. It could be compared to the weird calculations made by oki, claiming that "ARM7 needs about 10MHz to decode MP3 and about 180Mhz for OGG (for this purpose Rio Karma has 2 x ARM7 processors running at 90MHz) this is 18 times more power for ogg than for MP3!!! and which conclude with:

Quote

Concluding,
1st: Wogg ~= 18 x Waac;
2nd: Waac ~= Wmp3 in the newest implementations.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330804"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting indeed. Theory, common knowledge and early reports all indicate that decoding vorbis should consume a lot more power than decoding mp3, yet we have an experiment showing that the difference is minimal. Clearly, more data is needed. Does anyone have some more experimental results, so that we can confirm or falsify this?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331701"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting indeed. Theory, common knowledge and early reports all indicate that decoding vorbis should consume a lot more power than decoding mp3, yet we have an experiment showing that the difference is minimal. Clearly, more data is needed. Does anyone have some more experimental results, so that we can confirm or falsify this?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=331701"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting results.

I have an explanation other than reduced bitrates for ogg not using all that much battery compared to what's expected. There's also a non-xiph vorbis decoder on the market, focussing specifically on use with DSP's. It's mentioned in this thread.

I suppose for such a thing to be viable as a commercial product it has to outperform Tremor in the resources required to decode, which is usually linked to battery usage.

I did a little benchmark, i downloaded vov.exe (requires cygwin) from vinjey.com, and used OggDecT from rarewares.org.

I took a 1:07:35 podcast, which, at 128kbps nominally made for a file of 66.5MB, and started benchmarking. Here are the results:

Code: [Select]

D:\Download>timethis "start /realtime /b /wait oggdect.exe -o file.ogg > NUL:"

TimeThis :  Command Line :  start /realtime /b /wait oggdect.exe -o file.ogg > NUL:
TimeThis :    Start Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:41:37 2005

TimeThis :  Command Line :  start /realtime /b /wait oggdect.exe -o file.ogg > NUL:
TimeThis :    Start Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:41:37 2005
TimeThis :      End Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:42:49 2005
TimeThis :  Elapsed Time :  00:01:12.156

and

Code: [Select]

D:\Download>timethis "start /realtime /b /wait vov.exe file.ogg NUL:"

TimeThis :  Command Line :  start /realtime /b /wait vov.exe file.ogg NUL:
TimeThis :    Start Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:43:21 2005

VOV:: Got 0x201 while trying to get packet = 415631
VOV:: Time taken to decode is 96

TimeThis :  Command Line :  start /realtime /b /wait vov.exe file.ogg NUL:
TimeThis :    Start Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:43:21 2005
TimeThis :      End Time :  Wed Sep 28 18:44:57 2005
TimeThis :  Elapsed Time :  00:01:36.046

I ran each of these twice, but because of the realtime switch my system freezes and background apps cannot interfere, run times were identical for OggDecT, and the second vov run was 18ms slower. I consider these results highly accurate. There was no noticeable harddisk activity during the benchmarks. My system is an Athlon XP 2500+ with 1GB of PC2700 memory, slightly overclocked.

As you can see, tremor is 33% faster than vov, however this doesn't say much because vov isn't targeted for x86 systems, and i don't know the compiler and tunings that were used for it. It could still be god's gift for vorbis on DAPs
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=330212"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just bought a Samsung YP-MT6X and would like to convert my FLAC files for use with the portable. Keep in mind I will be using $20 KSC-75 clip-ons, not $1000 iems. According to Wikipedia:

"Many users feel that Vorbis reaches transparency (sound quality that is indistinguishable from the original source recording) at a quality setting of -q5, approximately 160 kbit/s. For comparison, it is commonly felt that MP3 reaches transparency at around 192 kbit/s, resulting in larger file sizes for the same sound quality."

Does that mean I should use Ogg q5 for the best compromise between space and quality?

Thanks,

-Jonathan.

EDIT: Sorry if my question parrots other threads, I didn't see any that explicitly answered my question.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327842"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]